This. It seems to me that people are more excited to point out what's wrong than they are to just start playing and help WotC out. The playtest is just that. You test it by playing it.

Now I can't exactly say for everyone here that they haven't tried yet, but whether they have or not, I believe this applies:

People need a chance to do just that. The materials just came out the middle of last week. I'm sure that there were plenty of games going on this weekend, but probably not as many as WotC would have liked. I think it might have been poor planning on their part to release it just before Memorial Day weekend. It probably seemed like a good idea; a lot of people have 3 day weekends. Many of them are spending that time with family though.

That's what happened in my case. Our normal weekend gathering didn't happen because of family plans. So we'll be playtesting it this coming weekend instead.

I personally went into this not wanting to like the new edition. I see so much of 2nd edition in it though that I'm really starting to like it. Playing it will really help me decide though.

4th Edition's biggest flaw was that they made every class the same. Sure, the words were different and the descriptors were different, and there were a small handful of semi-unique options available. But in the end, everyone had the same general array of abilities and actions available. They weren't really individual classes so much as different builds of a single class. The fact that they were all combat-oriented with little to no out-of-combat options didn't help matters either. Nor did the simplistic, overly redundant language they used in describing everything.

No, I agree with you in the language that 4th edition uses, but I'm not with you on the "no out-of-combat options". I think that the lack of out-of-combat options is actually one of the positives of 4th edition, that it doesn't stick rules where none should be.

I'm firmly on the side of "rules are designed for combat", and I'm very rules-light on non-combat. That's one of the reasons I was not a fan of 3rd/3.4/Pathfinder -- to much non-combat rules to wade through. There's no real need to force rules into an area that can be handled by a good DM and role-play.

Quote:

Say what you will about the quality and production values of earlier editions of the game, especially the first edition of AD&D, but at least TSR didn't dumb down the language or overly simplify everything. I remember being confused as Hell about some of the terminology used in those older books, and how they forced me to increase my vocabulary and reading comprehension skills. But the most recent edition? It makes me feel like I'm reading See Spot Run. If the creatively stifling rules and the MMO-oriented concepts weren't enough to drive me away, that would have done the job anyway. I don't enjoy being talked down to, and that's exactly the impression I get every time I read a 4th Edition rulebook... and the D&D Next playtest material.

They have to make the rules understandable if they want to appeal to new players.

That said, I think the biggest mistake they made and are continuing to make, at least from the playtest material I've read so far, is that they're catering to the munchkins "optimizers" too much. There's a reason these games have living, breathing Dungeon Masters capable of independent thinking. WotC needs to tell the munchkins to sod off, obliterate their "character optimization" forums, and just focus on making the best game they can while trying to keep it as internally consistent as they can. To hell with the rules lawyering crybabies. They, like most everyone else, are just going to house rule everything away anyway. So why make a shoddy game that caters to the worst elements of the player base?

The fact that "D&D Next" is one of the most insipid titles ever doesn't help, too.[/QUOTE]

But can he do it better than the fighter? I don't care if the right cleric build can be capable in melee. That's fine, desirable even, if I'm a follower of the God of War, I ought to be good at fighting. The problem arises if the cleric is better than the fighter can be, because then the fighter becomes pointless.

Truth. I have hopes but that's all I've got. I'll have to look over the playtest files again. One of the biggest problems leading to Clericzilla in 3e was that some of the best combat buffs could only be cast on yourself. Well, and then DM Persist came along and made everything insane, but it's not like it was necessary for Clerics to be better than Fighters, just handy.

I don't think it's strictly necessary for the cleric to be better in melee combat than the fighter for there to be a problem. The fighter is supposed to be the undisputed king of melee combat. If the cleric can provide a just-as-good subsitute and have spellcasting at the same time, as the cleric of Moradin in the playtest can, then the fighter's relevance dwindles.

Mearls has said that they're thinking of balancing the fighter by giving them the ability to pick two themes. In other words ... fighters get more feats. Wasn't there already version of D&D that thought more feats was a suitable balance for spells? Wonder how that worked out?

Supposedly the combat maneuver rules will be coming in the next playtest iteration. I'll be watching very closely. If the combat maneuvers are just basic stuff like tripping, grappling, disarming, etc., it'll be a sign to me that 5E is on the way back to Casters & Sidekicks.

I've never thought of D&D in any iteration was Casters and Sidekicks. I rather enjoy each and every class I play and what I get from them. I think the problem is bringing mathematics into your gameplay. Optimization is for wargaming, which many, many, many people can't stop from doing.
The vast majority of role-players don't go crazy with optimization. Casters & Sidekicks and the hate towards that line of play is a direct result of the haters creating that atmosphere.
I can create a legal warhammer 40,000 force that is practically unbeatable, decimating every force I play against. Does that make the game geared towards thse allowed-to-be-broken rules? No. It makes me an asshat for taking advantage of a system designed for mutual fun and gathering with others. All rules can be bent in ways they weren't prepared to go. Doing it doesn't mean the system is incorrect. It means you are in the wrong avenue of gaming.

To counter my own argument, balance is important in rules, I do agree. But every system can be bent, and most can be broken.

I've never thought of D&D in any iteration was Casters and Sidekicks. I rather enjoy each and every class I play and what I get from them. I think the problem is bringing mathematics into your gameplay. Optimization is for wargaming, which many, many, many people can't stop from doing.
The vast majority of role-players don't go crazy with optimization. Casters & Sidekicks and the hate towards that line of play is a direct result of the haters creating that atmosphere.
I can create a legal warhammer 40,000 force that is practically unbeatable, decimating every force I play against. Does that make the game geared towards thse allowed-to-be-broken rules? No. It makes me an asshat for taking advantage of a system designed for mutual fun and gathering with others. All rules can be bent in ways they weren't prepared to go. Doing it doesn't mean the system is incorrect. It means you are in the wrong avenue of gaming.

To counter my own argument, balance is important in rules, I do agree. But every system can be bent, and most can be broken.

First of all, you deserve a hug from a rather well-endowed woman for that post sir.

Second, would you mind PMing me that 40k force? I know a guy who simply needs to be taken down a notch. He claims he's better than everyone else in the shop.

But on topic: Playtested the part with the berserkers today. I would have LOVED to have a microphone! As I was describing the berserkers, I did this "Blargagagaga!" type roar at the players, and the PCs started mimicking them each turn. We had people giving us weird looks for four hours straight. It may not have anything to do with the mechanics, but dang. This edition seems quite capable of providing as much fun as the others. XD

I'm learning to be more helpful! If I seem like a jerk, PM me about it. Thanks!
May be attempting a new "ground-breaking" gaming style. If you're highly literate and would like to participate in my little experiment, PM me for info.